Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'm glad to see you agree on the first part. But the second part, the nation has decided that it is going in a different direction than you want it to do so.

You are correct. I understand my personal position is not currently viable in the US. So, I prefer the nation be as close to my position as possible, which means Obamacare is a huge step in the wrong direction. It's the same thing as immigration reform. I don't think illegals, under any circumstance, deserve rights as US citizens or the ability to become US citizens. That clearly isn't a position that can be maintained in the US right now, although I would contend in that case that it can be circumvented in the future by changing birthright citizenship.

You are correct. I understand my personal position is not currently viable in the US. So, I prefer the nation be as close to my position as possible, which means Obamacare is a huge step in the wrong direction. It's the same thing as immigration reform. I don't think illegals, under any circumstance, deserve rights as US citizens or the ability to become US citizens. That clearly isn't a position that can be maintained in the US right now, although I would contend in that case that it can be circumvented in the future by changing birthright citizenship.

But I will say that I think we impose more personal responsibility than you are willing to admit. I mean in the 90s the individual mandate was seen as one of the most effective ways of imposing personal responsibility into the market and a way of eliminating the free riders from the system that the emergency room treatment requirement created. The country largely (I would wager 99%+) thinks that if you need to go to the emergency room they should treat you. But if creates a gap that encourages you to wait until the emergency room is the only option. If you force people to have coverage in between that gap, then it will drastically reduce the cost of the emergency room treatment.

But I will say that I think we impose more personal responsibility than you are willing to admit. I mean in the 90s the individual mandate was seen as one of the most effective ways of imposing personal responsibility into the market and a way of eliminating the free riders from the system that the emergency room treatment requirement created. The country largely (I would wager 99%+) thinks that if you need to go to the emergency room they should treat you. But if creates a gap that encourages you to wait until the emergency room is the only option. If you force people to have coverage in between that gap, then it will drastically reduce the cost of the emergency room treatment.

At the expense of the rest of the nation though. Even if you decrease the cost of emergency room treatment, everyone else is still getting screwed because they're going to end up paying for you one way or another if you can't afford it.

At the expense of the rest of the nation though. Even if you decrease the cost of emergency room treatment, everyone else is still getting screwed because they're going to end up paying for you one way or another if you can't afford it.

Well yes, obviously if the person can't afford to pay someone is going to have to pay for it. But this cost is drastically reduced by requiring people to be responsible for their own health care and only those who can't afford it fall into the emergency room situation. Without the mandate, you have the unfortunate side effect from a situation that almost all of the country supports.

At the expense of the rest of the nation though. Even if you decrease the cost of emergency room treatment, everyone else is still getting screwed because they're going to end up paying for you one way or another if you can't afford it.

Your economic argument is flawed, and I can and have proven it. BUT, putting that aside for just a moment, if it were proven to you, that the direct and indirect costs to the public was lessened, would you approve it? If you wouldn't then it is not worth the effort to prove it, because it makes no difference to you, and the economic argument is just a strawman.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

Well yes, obviously if the person can't afford to pay someone is going to have to pay for it. But this cost is drastically reduced by requiring people to be responsible for their own health care and only those who can't afford it fall into the emergency room situation. Without the mandate, you have the unfortunate side effect from a situation that almost all of the country supports.

You shouldn't have to pay for other people's health insurance/care because they can't afford it. It is a violation of individual rights.

Originally Posted by cabernetluver

Your economic argument is flawed, and I can and have proven it. BUT, putting that aside for just a moment, if it were proven to you, that the direct and indirect costs to the public was lessened, would you approve it? If you wouldn't then it is not worth the effort to prove it, because it makes no difference to you, and the economic argument is just a strawman.

Nope. No one should be compelled/forced into buying health insurance that they don't want. In addition, people shouldn't be awarded health insurance if they can't personally afford it.

Nope. No one should be compelled/forced into buying health insurance that they don't want. In addition, people shouldn't be awarded health insurance if they can't personally afford it.

Thank you for your honesty and making the point that economics is not an issue for you.

As far as philosophical differences, thank you for agreeing that your position is not shared by a majority of people, here, and I might add, in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, China, etc. etc.

The lack of sharing does not make your position wrong per se, just out of touch with most of the civilized world. Strangely it is in line with places that you would not want to be connected to, and I find it insulting to connect people to those places, something I try to avoid.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

Thank you for your honesty and making the point that economics is not an issue for you.

As far as philosophical differences, thank you for agreeing that your position is not shared by a majority of people, here, and I might add, in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, China, etc. etc.

The lack of sharing does not make your position wrong per se, just out of touch with most of the civilized world. Strangely it is in line with places that you would not want to be connected to, and I find it insulting to connect people to those places, something I try to avoid.

I wouldn't say that economics isn't an issue, but more important are the rights of individuals, namely that they shouldn't be compelled or forced to buy something they don't want, nor should they be compelled or forced to buy something like healthcare or health insurance for people that they don't want to buy it for.

You'll have to understand I don't care who it connects me to, as it is my position and it won't change. I do understand it isn't practical in application for this country, thus I will advocate for the closest thing feasible to my position, which certainly is not Obamacare.

You shouldn't have to pay for other people's health insurance/care because they can't afford it. It is a violation of individual rights.

Nope. No one should be compelled/forced into buying health insurance that they don't want. In addition, people shouldn't be awarded health insurance if they can't personally afford it.

No its not. There are things that government pays for that not everyone takes advantage of because it is a net benefit of society. Government spending on things that not every single person uses is not a violation of individual rights. Is it a violation of your rights that some of your tax dollars go to paying for the education of children even if you don't have children?

No its not. There are things that government pays for that not everyone takes advantage of because it is a net benefit of society. Government spending on things that not every single person uses is not a violation of individual rights. Is it a violation of your rights that some of your tax dollars go to paying for the education of children even if you don't have children?

The problem is you're making the assumption that ONLY the government can do anything you've just listed.

There's very little that governments do effectively and if we truly want to give society the net benefit then we should take said issue out of the government's hand and place it into the private sector where it won't be a burden on the tax payer and will be left up the restraint of real market competition so waste and fraud are better cut out all together.

Healthcare, Education, whatever... it shouldn't be placed in a monopolistic government's hands because it always ends up devolving into a pathetically incompetent system because it is not left up the rigors of the market... like the DMV.

Healthcare wasn't expensive in this country until the government got into the business of giving it away.

The problem is you're making the assumption that ONLY the government can do anything you've just listed.

There's very little that governments do effectively and if we truly want to give society the net benefit then we should take said issue out of the government's hand and place it into the private sector.

Healthcare, Education, whatever... it shouldn't be placed in a monopolistic government's hands because it always ends up devolving into a pathetically incompetent system because it is not left up the rigors of the market.

Healthcare wasn't expensive in this country until the government got into the business of giving it away.

You are right, I am making an assumption that only the government can provide it. In this particular situation, it turns out that I am right in my assumption though. The only organization that has the capability to provide a service to every citizen is the government. There are no instances where a private entity has provided a service to 99%+ of the population.

We want the entire populace to have access to education and that will NEVER happen if it is solely private. The same with access to emergency care, which is why it is also paid for by government. We are willing to make a tradeoff between quality and quantity. We could get better quality if we make education private, however, you will see a trade off that people are not willing to make in that so many children will go completely uneducated. Which is why we have private education for those who wish to provide it for their children but public education for the entirety of society.